Jay Hill

[Business of the House, January 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my hon. colleague, I think that this is the type of thing that should be discussed between House leaders. I find it more than a little ironic that we were about to undertake yet another House leaders meeting where all four of the parties get together to try to deal with issues of importance to the House of Commons and this chamber.

Certainly, in the case of the much anticipated visit of President Obama, he is coming to Canada on his first foreign visit and we are very pleased about that. The details of that visit quite naturally will be worked out between the two leaders' offices, between the office of the Prime Minister of Canada and the office of the President of the United States.

[Business of the House, January 29th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I note that it used to be called the Thursday question, not Thursday questions, but I will try to deal with the items that my hon. colleague raised.

This afternoon we intend to continue with day two of the budget debate and dispose of the subamendment at 6:30 p.m.

Pursuant to the Speaker's ruling yesterday, following the vote on the subamendment, there will be an emergency debate on the transit strike that is presently ongoing here in Ottawa.

Tomorrow will be day three of the budget debate, following which the question will be put on the Liberal amendment. Pursuant to Standing Order 45(6)(a) that vote will be deferred to Monday, February 2 at 6:30 p.m.

Until the House votes on the Liberal amendment we cannot continue with the debate on the budget, so we will interrupt that debate and call the Canada-European free trade bill for Monday.

Tuesday will be the final day of the budget debate.

Wednesday's debate will be the continuation of the Canada-European free trade bill.

Thursday, February 5 shall be an allotted day.

On Friday, February 6 we will begin debate on the budget implementation bill. I ask my hon. colleague to be patient and see what is contained in this terrific budget implementation bill when it comes forward.

I would add that, as everyone is aware, the transit strike in Ottawa has gone unresolved for a very long time. The government is considering measures to resolve the matter and discussions between parties are ongoing. Clearly, those discussions may have an impact on the business which I just laid out. When I have more information on this particular subject, of course I will return to the House.

As is always the case with our Conservative government and our wish for transparency and openness, all of my ministerial colleagues will try their best to adjust their schedules to be available to the standing committees which hold them accountable.

[Request for Emergency Debate, January 28th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, of course we are all waiting with great anticipation for the speeches that are about to come, and I do not want to delay that any further, but I have no problem agreeing with that particular motion. That has become the norm for how we deal with these urgent debates.

[Address in Reply, January 26th, 2009]

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I do hope that it is imminent. Therefore, I move:

That the House do now adjourn.

(Motion agreed to)

[Business of the House, January 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, after consultation with the party whips, the Clerk of the House be authorized to convene for Tuesday, January 27, 2009 a meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs; and that on Tuesday, January 27, 2009, the House shall meet at 2:00 p.m. when members may make statements pursuant to Standing Order 31; not later than 2:15 p.m. oral questions shall be taken up; and at 3:00 p.m. the House shall proceed to the ordinary daily routine of business; following the ordinary daily routine of business the House shall, if necessary, suspend until 4:00 p.m. for the presentation of the Budget.

[Economic and Fiscal Statement, December 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, one thing I find it hard not to be upset about is this fallacy that the member's party perpetrated on the Canadian public that it was willing, and in fact eager, to try to make this Parliament work, that it would try to work in a co-operative manner, put forward ideas and consult with the government. I remarked yesterday that on the day of the Speaker's election all parties were actually talking this talk but unfortunately they did not walk the walk.

We have now learned that the hon. member's party, virtually since the election, was in consultations not with the government to try to make this Parliament work, as Canadians would like, but with the separatists to overturn the result of the election because it did not like the result.

I wonder if the member could explain to Canadians watching today why it is that his party and the member personally would support a motion of non-confidence in the government, which the official opposition on behalf of the so-called separatist coalition would, after six days of debate, decide in their infinite wisdom that Parliament is not working and they have to overturn the result of the election.

Instead of working in a positive way with the government and all parties, they decided that they had to throw the country into turmoil and move forward with a motion of non-confidence at the very time that our country is facing probably the greatest economic peril since the Great Depression. Most people recognize we have some very serious economic challenges.

The other question I would like the member to address is, how is it that when the NDP members talk about the urgency of the economic situation, they would overturn the election result and install an unstable coalition government that would take months to get up and running? Why instead will they not agree to wait for the budget that we have committed to bring forward after consultation on January 27?

[Points of Order, December 3rd, 2008]

That is the issue, Mr. Speaker. You have a huge job to do if we are going to get this chamber back under control. All I am suggesting is that all of us need to help you in doing this.

[Points of Order, December 3rd, 2008]

Here again, Mr. Speaker, the member for Hull—Aylmer across the way says “He did”. How is that helpful to us trying to move beyond this?

[Points of Order, December 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, that is the problem. Everybody is pointing a finger. I thought we were going to move beyond that.

It is no great revelation that all of us perhaps have been guilty in the last couple of days of getting tremendously emotional about the situation facing us as a chamber. It obviously makes your life, Mr. Speaker, extremely difficult once again with all this noise, especially when something is happening at the far end of the chamber, and you cannot hear people even beside you let alone at the far end.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that I privately brought to you a copy of Hansard from yesterday and pointed out to you a certain quote that was done directly, not indirectly, in this chamber, where a member referred to the Prime Minister as having told lies. You know that is not allowed. It is unparliamentary language—

[Points of Order, December 3rd, 2008]

I hear people hollering, Mr. Speaker. A member just said “And you broke it”. It is not terribly helpful to point the finger.

During that day, when successive members of all parties, with the exception of the Bloc Québécois, allowed their names to stand for the august position of Speaker of this chamber, everyone I thought was in agreement that we should try and move beyond the way in which—